The Death of Politics | Mises Institute
"Libertarianism is rejected by the modern Left — which preaches individualism but practices collectivism. Capitalism is rejected by the modern Right — which
As we know thanks to the blackpill no one is the blacksmith of his own fate (faber est quisque suae fortunae), it is genetics (for the nazis reading this its the jews) and a huge role looks have in the quality of your life. Standing on principle, pussy belongs to the man who's closest to resemble chad.
"Both Left and Right are reactionary and authoritarian. That is to say, both are political. They seek only to revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power."
I agree. Hard for the left and right not to care for political power which enables change and reform thus control over the public space and in affect your life. Both the left and the right are subscribing to greek idea of freedom, which is that true freedom is being uninfluenced by the outside factors. The communist and the rightoid both have a general prescription how to behave, act and think in order to be free of these factors.
For the communist it is the submission towards the politburo consisting of educated marxists who know theory well enough to forsee the dialectic-material consequences of every decision (and how and what the socioeconomic conditions will determine people to do), always forseeing the end of capitalism or soon to be achieved true socialism just over the hill (I once saw a skit of how Moses was talking to God and promising the promised land was right behind a dune was the yoke of the joke)
Whilst the rightoid has X-ray given to him by God to spot degeneracy and satan, with him being the secular ruler who by right of divine rule has achieved the status of power, as a direct force of God's will everything and everyone must follow his word.
The centrist and the liberal also suffer of this. The centrist wants power in order not to use it. Basically the centrist support everything which will occur without his interference by not poking his nose into oncomng circumstances enabling the things being bred from the natural and logical progression of the circumstance. As the writers of Spider-man homecoming said "If something happens, and you had the power to stop it, it happened because of you"
The liberal simply is insecure and wants to have a right to take life when someone will critize him for forcing order (his indyviduality) onto others, naivly thinking nobody will posses more power and clout than him or his fellow liberals to do anything.
Only a small high IQ, minority of people believe in freedom like the philosophers of enlightemed have viewed it. The same cowardly people are afraid of making any decision paralyzed by the question whether or not they won't start treading on another human, always losing by not making the first step and when faced with agression, debating the proportionality in order for the punishment not transform into a crime.
The non-cowardly High IQs who believe in that freedom don't know and don't care when a punishment becomes a crime and they become old-school warlords.
"Radical and revolutionary movements seek not to revise but to revoke. The target of revocation should be obvious. The target is politics itself."
Hard cope. Politics the way he saw it is impossible to end. To ammount of talking and convincing will keep people away from not rebuilding the politics he views. You'd have to go with Trotsky's constant revolution doctrine in the theoretical and literal way.
In other words, the struggle would be eternal, as there is no human on this earth who would not be aroused by the prospect of recreating the state and it being made in his own image the very same way we have created to concept of God in our own image.
"The libertarian faith in the mind of men is rejected by religionists who have faith only in the sins of man. The libertarian insistence that men be free to spin cables of steel, as well as dreams of smoke, is rejected by hippies who adore nature but spurn creation. The libertarian insistence that each man is a sovereign land of liberty, with his primary allegiance to himself, is rejected by patriots who sing of freedom but also shout of banners and boundaries"
I agree.
"There is no operating movement in the world today that is based upon a libertarian philosophy. If there were, it would be in the anomalous position of using political power to abolish political power."
Its not anomalous. Democracy can disband itself for instance. A fire can extinguish itself out by burning the fuel keeping it lit. I can use my life, to end another's or myself. Wtf is this?
"This is not merely a digression on behalf of a political figure (almost an antipolitical figure) whom I profoundly respect. It is, rather, to emphasize the inadequacy of traditional, popular guidelines in assessing the reactionary nature of contemporary politics and in divining the true nature of radical and revolutionary antipolitics."
Yeah, ok. If "antipolitics" is suppoused to be the opposite to politics, then calculation with the use of negative numbers isn't math. The common point is that both are numbers. In his "natipolitics" the common point with "politics" is the proposed organization of public space, which is essentially the rules people should live by.
Looks deceive and honestly there is no awe in the fact that such a simple aesthethic trick managed to convince people who take this seriously libertarianism is something revolutionairy or new, its not. It is simply politics reapinted and you're being told its not.
As any idea it has its quality, worse or btter I dunno.
"It was European conservatives who, apparently fearful of the openness of the Industrial Revolution (why, anyone could get rich!), struck the first blows at capitalism by encouraging and accepting laws that made the disruptions of innovation and competition less frequent and eased the way for the comforts and collusions of cartelization."
Historic revisionism. It was due to fear of socialism. It is true that the conservatives of that time were mostly aristocrats who didn't want to share power with the rich, however the true confinement on economic liberty was to stop socialist popularity. Ever heard of Rerum novarum?
"Big business in America today and for some years has been openly at war with competition(...)"
Hard agree. Capitalists hate capitalism, which is why they always ask for donations, for bailouts which are a strong counter to the idea of a free-market. This of course is supported by the notion that the peple must be taken care for and they will suddenly loose their jobs. However the people who made the bad decisions leading to the downfall of the company rarely loose power.
Shouldn't idiots die off and the strong and inteligent breed and prosper?
More so the responsibilitites towards the contract beetwen the worker and the eployee is almost always not honored, as the workers are left wihtout even being paid for the hours they have worked up until the point of the company's bankruptcy while the owners keep around a safe ammount of money. Truth is that by the authority of the contract the money of the employee should be taken away and the employ taxed and held responsible to pay what he is due, be it into extinction if so neccessery.
